On Tuesday 12 July 2005 11:02, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> Felix Domke wrote:
> > Andrew de Quincey wrote:
> > > Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> > >>I vote for adding the provider_name to the service info
> > >>in the multiplex file (can't think of a better place
> > >>to put it).
> > >
> > > Will that not add lots of duplicate string entries though, again
> > > increasing the file size? I suppose another option as Felix suggests
> > > would be to have just the ID in the multiplex file and the actual
> > > strings in another.. of course we then get the problem of clashing
> > > provider IDs :(
> >
> > Well, it would be nothing more than some kind of compression. all
> > different provider_names must be collected, and there must be something
> > like a map at the start which maps them to the numbers.
>> I still think it isn't worth it. OTOH you have to build the map
> anyway when loading, so you can group/sort your services by provider,
> so it might make sense to save it in that format...
OK, I'll add "pname=<...>". I'll make it optional though - not everyone (i.e.
me :) wants it for their uses.
> > >>BTW, it seems this file has undefined character encoding?
> > >>We should define the encoding to be utf-8.
> > >
> > > Yeah - I was thinking of UTF8, but never actually wrote it down
> > > anywhere.
> >
> > what's about the special DVB chars? I vote for just including them, of
> > course UTF-8 encoded.
>> You mean to not store long and short service name, but instead
> store the DVB string? Hm. (IIRC in name fields only emphasis
> on and off control chars are allowed, with the purpose of
> signifying a possible short service name).
>> How about storing the short name only when it is different
> from the long name? Easier to read and edit, and saves
> parsing work.
how about?
name=<...> for long name, not optional.
sname=<...> for short name, optional.
> > >>Will there be a "list of lists"? I.e. how is the order of
> > >>favourites lists in the menu defined (to make sure that
> > >>"daddy's list" comes first)?
> > >>Flash file systems don't waste much space for small files, so
> > >>having a number of small files is not an issue.
> > >
> > > hmm, yeah, you'd have to have an index file. Do you think we need a
> > > full hierarchical structure though? Thats what was causing headaches
> > > for me.
> >
> > A stupid idea, just to think about that option:
> >
> > What's about sorting the filenames (of the lists), thus defining the
> > list? (The name of the lists are defined inside the list..)
> >
> > But I agree that this is probably going to be a bad idea. the advantage
> > would be that you could import favourites without editing any file, the
> > disadvantage is that, on hierarchies, the "directories" can't be named.
>> I'm not convinced about the hierarchy thing. Sane people will only
> have a small number of favourite lists. Why spend time supporting
> insanity? :-)
That is my opinion too - does anyone else have any feelings about this?